Quote:
https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc...ion-of-vaccine
That doesn't inspire confidence.
There has been twisting of semantics on both sides.Originally Posted by Nantonaku
There are some smart people saying they are more similar to a therapy than to a vaccine. Maybe not a gene therapy but closer to a therapy than a vaccine. As has been brought up before, the CDC only had to redefine vaccine so the current crop of medicine could still be called a vaccine:https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc...ion-of-vaccine
That doesn't inspire confidence.
Generally, for *practical* purposes a "vaccine" is something you get in advance of exposure to reduce risk of infection (or risk from infection, which is very applicable in this case). A "vaccine" works by stimulating the immune system in advance of exposure and requires some lead time (typically two weeks).
A "therapeutic" is generally pharma that you get after onset of illness, or administered after exposure before onset to minimize risk. You could even use a therapy before exposure if you're expecting possible exposure (example some HIV drugs, or some covid meds like MCA).
Fundamentally, regardless of what some online dictionary says, a "vaccine" requires lead time to stimulate your immune system. A therapy would generally be expected to function immediately and would be used for known illness, known exposure, or possibly as a short-term preventative in the case of anticipated possible exposure.
For example, MCA's count as a "therapy" because they start working immediately and don't rely on a weeks-long immune-system learning curve.
Whether a pharma's functionality is "vaccine" or "therapeutic" has nothing to do with efficacy and everything to do with mechanism and response time.